Date of filing:- 16/02/2021.
Date of Argument:- 03/09/2022.
Date of Order/Judgement:-09/09/2022.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2021.
Smt. Sumita Acharya, W/o. Sri Ajit Kumar Dash, aged about 34 years, R/o. Brahmandeipada, Po. Angul, Ps. Angul Town, Dist. Angul (Odisha), At. Present Residence of Senior Civil Judge cum ASJ (Womens Court), Bargarh (Odisha) 768028.
..... ..... Complainant.
V e r s u s
Shri Subhendu Mohapatra, Authorised Signatory, HOME2HOME PACKERS AND MOVERS, 388/22 NARESH BISWAS SARANI, BEHALA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL 700060. .. ….. Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- :- Ex-Parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.09/09/2022. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President:-
(1) The Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a Judicial Officer and transferred from Baripada to Bargarh as Senior Civil Judge Cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Womens Court, Bargarh and joined on 05/11/2020. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party for transportation of household goods from Baripada to Bargarh and sought for quotation. The Opposite Party transporter quoted Rs.42000/- (Rupees fourty two thousand)only. The Complainant agreed and paid an advance of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only. After delivery of goods the balance amount of Rs.22000/-(Rupees twenty two thousand)only was to be paid.
On 02/12/2020 the Opposite Party transporter through truck bearing No. OD 02 BM 3084 transported the goods and assured to reach Bargarh on the next day. When the goods not reached to Bargarh the Complainant passed through mental tension and harassed by the Opposite Party. Later on the Complainant came to unow that on the route near Jhatiamal under Simulia P.s. all the goods and truck got completely damaged due to fire and the reason was also not informed to the Complainant. The value of the goods is approximately Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh)only. Due to negligence and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the goods despatched from Baripada could not reach its destination.
The Complainant made several verbal request and sent advocate notice through Sri D. Acharya on 08/01/2021. The Opposite Party replied through Mr. Ashok Das, Advocate Calcutta and said the claim as frivolous and vexatious on dated 11/02/2021.
Being aggrieved the Complainant field this Complaint.
(2) The Commission after admission of the Complaint issued notice to the Opposite Party. On behalf of the Opposite Party, Sri Srikanta Mohanty received the notice but the Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission. On 20/08/2022 the Opposite Party was set exparte.
(3) Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. Quotation No. H2H20081040 dated 21/11/2020 was issued by the Opposite Party for Rs.42000/-(Rupees fourty two thousand)only, the transportation for old and used household goods from Baripada to Bargarh. The Opposite Party gave the bank details A/c No. 37987231839 SBIN 0002016, SBI, Parnashue Branch. The details of goods list dated 20/11/2020 has been acknowledged by the Opposite Party, pleader notice dated 08/01/2021 was issued by Sri D. Acharya, Advocate to the Opposite Party.
(4) After receiving the pleader notice dated 08/01/2021 the Opposite Party replied through his advocate Sri Ashok Das, Calcutta dated 11/02/2021. Perused the reply notice wherein the Opposite Party categorically replied that no claim will be entertained if the goods are not insured. On good faith the Opposite Party carried the goods. Value of the property has not been supplied, for the act of God the Opposite Party is not liable. The Vehicle and goods carriage caught fire and it became impossible to deliver in destination. The demand of the Complainant is imaginary and the insurance company is liable for payment of Compensation as there is no fault of the Opposite Party Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only advance has been returned to the Complainants husband account through google pay as a good gesture. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant through phone. Further supplied a copy of report regarding cause of fire dated 03/12/2020 vide letter No. 1164 dated 22/12/2020 , Soro fire station only letter no. 5184 dated 16/12/2020 addressed to I.I.C. Simulia, Ps. By Inspecton of Motore Vehicles, Balasore has been supplied but no report of Sri Prasanta Kumar Das, Jr. M.M, Balasore has been attached. The Vehicle bearing No. OD 02 BM 3084 has been admitted as inspected. No report on Motor Vehicle, copy of F.I.R/ Station Diary/Report of Loss Assessor or valuer etc has been provided by the Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party on 04/11/2020 refunded Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only through google pay to Sri Ajit Dash, hunband of the Complainant.
(5) Learned Advocate for Complainant Sri D. Acharya in his oral submission cited a case of Chhattisgarh SCDRC (2004) 3 CPJ 487, the case of Bhilai Golden Transport Co. Vs. Raipur Sales Agency. As a consignor the Complainant paid Rs.20000/- (Rupees twenty thousand)only as advance and accordingly is a Consumer of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party can not absolve from his liability as per the Carriers Act. The Opposite Party admittedly not delivered the goods at Bargarh. It is a presumptive proof of negligence of the Opposite Party/carrier/transporter. The Onus lies on the transporter, to prove that he was not negligent. It is alleged by the Opposite Party that the truck bearing No. OD BM 3084 caught fire on the way near Jatiamal under Simulia P.S and it was an Act of God. The Opposite Party has not informed the cause of origin of the fire. It is not an act of God rather designed by the Opposite Party to absolve from liability, shifting responsibility to Complainant saying that it is not insured. As per section 9 of the Carriers Act 1865 it is not obligatory for the Complainant to prove negligence rather onus lies on the Carrier/Transporter.
As the goods could not reach its destination and the Opposite Party failed to perform his part of contract, he is deficient in its service. As per ratio in Patel Roadways V. Birla Yamaha Ltd. (2000) ICPJ 42 (SC) and Wath Bros. Exim International Ltd V Best Roadways (2000) ICPJ 25 (SC) the proof of negligence lies on the Opposite Party and it is not an act of God.
Sri D. Acharya, learned counsel prayed the Commission to allow the Complaint and compensation as claimed.
(6) The Complainant has not mentioned the value of the goods in the Complainant nor in the consignment. It is difficult to assess the loss as no any approved value/Assessor report has been sent to the Complainant. The Opposite party has not also provided the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector and the copy of F.I.R/Station diary.
The only point of consideration is the consignment letter and charges of transportation. The clause 9 of the quotation says risk coverage will be chargeable @ 3 percent of total value of goods. The charges fixed by Opposite party is Rs.42000/- (Rupees fourty two thousand)only and it is agreed by the parties. So the agreed value of the goods carried comes to Rs.14,00,000/-(Rupees fourteen lakh)only but the Complainant claimed only Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh)only and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakh fifty thousand)only. The Commission can not go beyond the claim.
(7) From the Supra Circumstances it is established that the Opposite party is deficient in its service and liable to pay the value of the goods and compensation as claimed for Accordingly it is ordered :
O R D E R
The Complaint is allowed exparte against the Opposite Party. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh)only value of the goods and compensatin of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakh fifty thousand)only to the Complainant within one month of this Order. In case of non payment the Opposite Party has to pay 12% interest on the amount Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh)only w.e.f. 16/03/2021 till the date of actual payment.
Order pronounced in open court on this 9th September 2022.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Anju Agarwarl) ( Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy)
M e m b e r (w) P r e s i d e n.
Uploaded by
Office Assistant,
DCDRC, Bargarh.
